Few subjects elicit as much confused, or even nonsensical, commentary as sex.

There are three major reasons for this.

First, few forces are as powerful as the sexual drive, yet in no area of human life are the sexes so different. If they try hard, men and women can understand almost everything about one another. But regarding male sexual nature, unless girls and women are taught about male sexual nature — and few are, especially in our time — there is no way they can understand male sexual nature. It may be the one area of life wherein men are more capable of understanding women.

The second reason is modern feminism — and leftist doctrine in general. Each has contributed to an unprecedented female ignorance — denial, actually — of male sexuality. And that is the result of a basic impulse of feminists and leftists: the denial of truths that make them uncomfortable.

And third, an unprecedented number of Americans have attended college where feminist and left-wing thought are the reigning orthodoxies.

The Visual

Perhaps the biggest difference between the sexes is the sexual power of the visual. Men are aroused by — they don't just "find attractive" — seeing a woman, or just a part of a woman they find physically attractive. Whenever women counter that they, too, are aroused by looking at attractive men, it only reaffirms how difficult it is for women to fully comprehend this aspect of male sexual nature. Because there is no comparison. It is not their fault; it is as hard for a woman to understand the power of the visual on men as it is for human beings to understand orangutans.

Women may be aroused by looking at a particularly handsome man, or by looking at a male celebrity, but otherwise it takes much more than mere looking to turn women on. That's why images of naked and semi-naked women are, and always will be, immeasurably more popular among men than images of naked or semi-naked men are among women.

Which brings us to "sexual objectification."

Largely because of the power of the visual, men sexually objectify women. This means that men's initial reaction to a woman's body is to see it as a sex object. Women's breasts, thighs, legs and buttocks arouse men — even without seeing the women's faces. For other men, it can be women's feet. There are websites dedicated to pictures of women's feet, armpits, legs, crossed legs, thighs, buttocks and breasts. There are no commensurate websites for women to stare at men's thighs or crossed legs, let alone men's feet or armpits.

All of which means that sexual objectification of women is natural to men. It is not the product of a patriarchal, "Playboy," sexist or misogynist society.

Nor does it mean that objectification is "misogynistic."

It is repeatedly said — primarily by the college-educated — that the male sexual objectification of women is an expression of misogyny. This is nonsense. The single greatest proof is that gay men sexually objectify men. If heterosexual men are women haters because they sexually objectify women, then gay men are man haters because they sexually objectify men.

It is male nature — the homosexual male's as much as the heterosexual male's — for a man to objectify the object of his sexual desire. Not only does this have nothing to do with hatred of women but in the ideal circumstance — marriage — a man's periodic sexual objectification of his wife is a wonderful thing. That's why a woman will wear sexy clothing in the bedroom: to render herself — the woman who, 99 percent of the time, is his wife, his friend, his partner, the mother of his children, the successful businesswoman, the accomplished homemaker — a sexual object. The longer a marriage can sustain the ability of the husband to periodically see his wife as a "sex object," the happier that marriage will be. If you don't believe me, ask divorce lawyers how good that is for a marriage, and how destructive its absence can be to a marriage.

It is also helpful to note that men who put their hand on a woman's buttocks are not necessarily misogynists. They lack the requisite self-control of a gentleman. But lacking self-control is not the same as misogyny. And haven't progressives gotten rid of the term "gentleman"?

That I have felt it necessary to write this brief primer on male sexuality for the college-educated is nothing less than a tragedy. My mother, who never attended college, knew everything written here. It is even likely that my Polish-Jewish grandmother, who never attended high school, knew everything written here. But for college graduates of the last 50 years — or even worse, graduate-school graduates — much of if this is new — and, therefore, controversial.

If this does not convince you how much of an intellectual wasteland universities have become, nothing will.